Article V Convention?

JD1965 · May 14, 2020

Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

Mycroft · May 14, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming and broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're legitimate and credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--that right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

So...you want a "FORMAL Convention" so people can get together and go in circles like yapping poodles.

Okay. Sure. But make the people going to the Convention pay for it.

JD1965 · May 14, 2020

Mycroft said:
So...you want a "FORMAL Convention" so people can get together and go in circles like yapping poodles.

Okay. Sure. But make the people going to the Convention pay for it.

You know what Robert's Rules of Order are right? You ever been to a deliberative assembly? Someone makes a proposal and then consensus is built.

In other words, what happens on the internet would not happen at an assembly of state delegates tasked with discussing amendments.

d0gbreath · May 14, 2020

You want them to discuss amendments to the Constitution in light of recent events? You don't mention any. How will they know where to start?

Fledermaus · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

Your choices are rather asinine.

Yes, No, Undecided would be more mature.

swing_voter · May 15, 2020

Only if I get to make all the changes. Nobody else.

jotathought · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

What are you proposing to be ratified?

upsideguy · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

How about we DEFINE the 'collective situation'. What on earth are you talking about?

I am actually surprised that the Republicans did not use their unusual and disproportionate power in state legislatures a few years ago to use this a power grab and modify all of the amendments that they hate. Fortunately, they did not attempt such an overreach. Otherwise, as long as we have such a tribal mentality about issues in this country, we will not see any changes to the Constitution.

Lutherf · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

And how would you feel if we had such a convention and the decision was made to retain the form of a Constitutional Republic? How would you feel if the decision was made to become a Federal Social Democracy and 12 states decided to take up arms against the other 38?

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

d0gbreath said:
You want them to discuss amendments to the Constitution in light of recent events? You don't mention any. How will they know where to start?

Political polls of the past quarter century will tell them where to start. If I was a delegate, I would make a motion we form a committee focused on electoral reform amendments.

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

Fledermaus said:
Your choices are rather asinine.

Yes, No, Undecided would be more mature.

I've happened to have seen an exchange between you and someone else. Our worldviews are different, I suspect you will never admit the need to formally discuss amendments the Congress never will.

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

swing_voter said:
Only if I get to make all the changes. Nobody else.

As you know, whatever is proposed as amendment language must be ratified by 75%+ of the states.

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

jotathought said:
What are you proposing to be ratified?

I think we need an amendment concerned with electoral reform, a federal standard to create transparency and increase accuracy.

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

upsideguy said:
How about we DEFINE the 'collective situation'. What on earth are you talking about?

I am actually surprised that the Republicans did not use their unusual and disproportionate power in state legislatures a few years ago to use this a power grab and modify all of the amendments that they hate. Fortunately, they did not attempt such an overreach. Otherwise, as long as we have such a tribal mentality about issues in this country, we will not see any changes to the Constitution.

The collective situation is a corporate status quo, to put it simply--a privatization of government functions. There are millions of Americans who desire a federal convention of state delegates tasked with doing one thing: discuss amendment language that Congress and corporate politics (Repub/Dem) never will.

JD1965 · May 15, 2020

Lutherf said:
And how would you feel if we had such a convention and the decision was made to retain the form of a Constitutional Republic? How would you feel if the decision was made to become a Federal Social Democracy and 12 states decided to take up arms against the other 38?

Seeing how any "decision" can only be accomplished with 75%+ approval of fifty states from across a huge regionalized nation, I'd be OK with it. States taking up arms against other states seems ludicrous in this day and age, people are too disneyified to get that type of vengeance together. But we would be able to talk electoral reform, we would be able to talk economic reform, stuff that 90% would be for.

Fledermaus · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
I've happened to have seen an exchange between you and someone else. Our worldviews are different, I suspect you will never admit the need to formally discuss amendments the Congress never will.

Your choices are still rather asinine.

Yes, No, Undecided would still be more mature.

PirateMk1 · May 15, 2020

JD1965 said:
You know what Robert's Rules of Order are right? You ever been to a deliberative assembly? Someone makes a proposal and then consensus is built.

In other words, what happens on the internet would not happen at an assembly of state delegates tasked with discussing amendments.

Never say never, Murphy ALWAYS has a say.

JD1965 · May 16, 2020

PirateMk1 said:
Never say never, Murphy ALWAYS has a say.

You don't know what parliamentary procedure is, it's ok not many do.

JD1965 · May 16, 2020

Fledermaus said:
Your choices are still rather asinine.

Yes, No, Undecided would still be more mature.

No, they're intelligent. Asinine to you because there is a truth to them that bothers you.

jotathought · May 16, 2020

JD1965 said:
I think we need an amendment concerned with electoral reform, a federal standard to create transparency and increase accuracy.

Translated: abolish the electoral college?

Fledermaus · May 16, 2020

JD1965 said:
No, they're intelligent. Asinine to you because there is a truth to them that bothers you.

Your *snicker* opinion is noted.

Please partisan again.

Hatuey · May 16, 2020

Lutherf said:
And how would you feel if we had such a convention and the decision was made to retain the form of a Constitutional Republic? How would you feel if the decision was made to become a Federal Social Democracy and 12 states decided to take up arms against the other 38?

Who ... within these 12 states would rise against other states? Who has enough pull in any state to get people to go shooting guns with them in the name of a cause? [emoji23]

What exactly would they do? Demand their followers take over cities by force if necessary and then ... Yeah, everyone will just let that happen? The local PD will just say, yeah, okay you boys run things now?

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

PirateMk1 · May 16, 2020

JD1965 said:
You don't know what parliamentary procedure is, it's ok not many do.

I know what it is, you assume people will play by the rules, and that is your problem. Thats the problem we have now. Rules dont matter when people dont follow them. Like I said, Murphy always has a say.

Luther · May 16, 2020

JD1965 said:
Do you think it's time to FORMALLY discuss our collective situation?

We run around here on this site and others, going in circles like yapping poodles, INFORMALLY discussing our collective situation, so why wouldn't we want to formally discuss it?

Don't give me the BS that a convention will be taken over by special interests because that's impossible since there's nothing to do at a convention except discuss and propose. Ratification remains the check against harebrained and/or fringe ideas. And what could special interests propose, as amendment language, that roughly seven out of ten Americans would agree to? Answer: Nothing. Special interests and overwhelming/broad support are contradictory by nature.

You say you revere the Constitution yet won't use it as it's meant to be used?

The Article V Convention is a litmus test as to whether or not you know what you're talking about and/or if you're credible in your opinion.

You can't say you support the Constitution and then say No to it's ultimate right--the right to formally discuss our government and whether additional amendments are needed in light of recent events.

You can fool yourself with this all day

It doesn't change the thing that really needs to be reformed. Our citizenry

Lutherf · May 16, 2020

Hatuey said:
Who ... within these 12 states would rise against other states? Who has enough pull in any state to get people to go shooting guns with them in the name of a cause? [emoji23]

What exactly would they do? Demand their followers take over cities by force if necessary and then ... Yeah, everyone will just let that happen? The local PD will just say, yeah, okay you boys run things now?

Я Баба Яга [emoji328]

Just because the state votes for a change doesn't mean that all residents of the state agree. You'll have a significant percentage of disagreement in EVERY state.

Article V Convention?

Is it time for the Article V Convention?

Yes. We need to formally discuss our collective situtation.

No. I'm afraid to formally discuss amendments.

No. I'm an operative and the convention process will likely expose me.

What? I'm a balloon head and don't understand what this is about.

Active member

Genius is where you find it.

Active member

Yellow Dog Democrat

Pragmatic Idealist

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Rule of Two

Another California Refugee

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency